Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: << And those who throw accusations at their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, then the testimony of one of them is four testimonies by Allah that he is among the truthful...

And the predicate of the subject, which is "testimony," is omitted; the author supplied its meaning by saying, "the punishment for false accusation is averted from him." "Averted from him" means "repelled from him." I think we should be attentive now. Regarding the subject "testimony" and "four," what do we say about its grammar? It is a substitute for the verbal noun? Where is its governor? "Testimony." Good. The subject is here, and where is the predicate? We say the predicate is omitted, and its estimated meaning is "the punishment for false accusation is repelled from him." So its meaning is that one of them testifies with four testimonies by Allah, and so on, and the punishment for false accusation is repelled from him. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) did not mention the second reading, which is the reading of the nominative case: "Then the testimony of one of them is four testimonies by Allah." In the reading of the nominative case, we say "testimony" is the subject and "four testimonies" is its predicate. Yes. Good. "Four testimonies by Allah"—"by Allah" means he must say, "I testify by Allah." It is connected to "testimonies." It is not sufficient to say, "I testify that my wife is such and such." Rather, he must say, "I testify by Allah," so that the testimony includes both a testimony and an oath. "I testify by Allah." For this reason, it was answered with the answer to an oath. What is the answer to the oath? "That he is among the truthful." Yes. Stay with me. A person must testify with a testimony by Allah so that it is a testimony coupled with an oath. The evidence for this is that it was answered with what an oath is answered with, which is His saying: This declarative sentence is affirmed by the testimony and the oath, and "inna" and the lam. These are four affirmations, and they are repeated four times, so it becomes affirmation beyond affirmation. Thus, his reporting that his wife committed adultery is affirmed by these four. Is that so, Ya Ismail? Count them, and they are...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Good. And the lam and the nun, and what comes after? And "the testimony is four testimonies" means "I testify by Allah that I am among the truthful." Good. And his saying "among the truthful": the truthful one is the one who reports what corresponds to reality. And his saying "in what he accused his wife of, namely adultery," means he must say this or its equivalent. Either he says "in what you accused me of, namely adultery," or "in what you falsely accused me of, namely adultery," or whatever conveys this meaning. It is important to note that it is not sufficient to say, "I testify by Allah that I am among the truthful." This is not sufficient. What is the reason? Because he might intend "the truthful" in a matter other than this case. The apparent meaning of the Noble Qur'an is that it suffices, because Allah did not say, "in what you accused me of, namely adultery, that he is among the truthful." And if he intended "the truthful" in some other statement, it will not benefit him. Because, as came in the hadith, So you, even if you intended otherwise, you have only testified to what? To what you accused her of, namely adultery. So whether he mentions it or does not mention it, the ruling does not differ. For this reason, the Qur'an did not restrict it to that. What did it base it on? That the context specifies it, and that his intention to the contrary does not benefit him. Why? Because the oath is on what your opponent confirms with you, meaning he claims against you. Yes, yes. But if he said that, or she requested that, for example, or the judge requested it from her, then it is more preferable for the sake of the person being more reassured. For reassurance, meaning if the judge requested it from him, for example, because the judge feared he might interpret it, even though his interpretation does not benefit him, if he orders him to do so, he should comply with this thing. If he orders him to say that, he should comply. Yes.